Take the AARP Smart Driver course and you could save on auto insurance! Sign up today.

Reply
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
92
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

92 Views
Message 1 of 225

I just read about an American Company that sells 60 and 100 Round Magazines for AR-15's and several other Military Style Assault Rifles. They will ship it free to any State except Calif.,Colorado , Hawaii , Maryland , Mass , New Jersey , New York and Wash DC.

Those States have common sense and have outlawed such Weapons of Mass Destruction in Civilian's hands.

 

What Civilian needs 100 Bullets in a Gun without reloading ? 10 or 15 Isn't enough ?

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
92
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
165
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

165 Views
Message 2 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:


Well - the right of the people to bear full automatic arms and rocket launchers and other devices has been infringed.

Justify that infringement citing only the constitution.


Were those in Colonial America allowed to keep cannon?  The military type weapons of the day?

 

Have a good day, Alferd.


You failed to cite either the Constitution or any decisions by any courts.

 

Tell us - how is it that full automatic bb guns are legal - they are, you know...

 

Of course I'll have a good day of not being one of tRump's dishonest droogs and honoring them with the bi-labio-lingual fricative salute.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
165
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
167
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

167 Views
Message 3 of 225

@alferdpacker wrote:


Well - the right of the people to bear full automatic arms and rocket launchers and other devices has been infringed.

Justify that infringement citing only the constitution.


Were those in Colonial America allowed to keep cannon?  The military type weapons of the day?

 

Have a good day, Alferd.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
167
Views
Highlighted
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
172
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

172 Views
Message 4 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@alferdpacker wrote:


The actual wording of the Second Amendment ONLY contains the word "arms", and does not specify what constitutes "arms"...

 


What was considered 'arms' in Colonial America?  Certainly not bio or chemical weapons. And it definitely doesn't just say 'muskets'.  The implication was firearms.


Well - the right of the people to bear full automatic arms and rocket launchers and other devices has been infringed.

Justify that infringement citing only the constitution.

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
172
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
176
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

176 Views
Message 5 of 225

@alferdpacker wrote:


The actual wording of the Second Amendment ONLY contains the word "arms", and does not specify what constitutes "arms"...

 


What was considered 'arms' in Colonial America?  Certainly not bio or chemical weapons. And it definitely doesn't just say 'muskets'.  The implication was firearms.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
176
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
183
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

183 Views
Message 6 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Richva wrote:


Firearms are so passe'  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well organized militia. If we go with what the framers intended, we are talking muzzle loading black powder weapons.  If we are ignoring that, then we should be allowed to have bio and chemical weapons. 


A far out premise. First the amendment specifically mentions firearms, not bio and chemical weapons.  Introducing them into a discussion is completely far out and is more an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. 

 

And further the second amendment didn't differentiate or mention specifics such as muskets, but firearms.  Claiming it only applied to muskets is a further attempt towards obfuscation.  If it was the case, then why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that it only meant muskets?  There has been many opportunities to do so through the years.


The actual wording of the Second Amendment ONLY contains the word "arms", and does not specify what constitutes "arms"...

 

44>dolt45
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
183
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
193
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

193 Views
Message 7 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@Richva wrote:


Firearms are so passe'  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well organized militia. If we go with what the framers intended, we are talking muzzle loading black powder weapons.  If we are ignoring that, then we should be allowed to have bio and chemical weapons. 


A far out premise. First the amendment specifically mentions firearms, not bio and chemical weapons.  Introducing them into a discussion is completely far out and is more an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. 

 

And further the second amendment didn't differentiate or mention specifics such as muskets, but firearms.  Claiming it only applied to muskets is a further attempt towards obfuscation.  If it was the case, then why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that it only meant muskets?  There has been many opportunities to do so through the years.


The Slave States would NEVER have approved the 2d Ameindment if it was intended to apply to INDIVIDUALS instead of "Well Regulated Militias" because it would allow the free blacks in the North to arm themselves and forment a slave revolt. This is simply part of the slave-owner culture that still existed in the 1960's - two shipmates, one from Georgia other from Louisanna,  in the service did not believe there were Black cowboys in the West because to quote them "they'd never allow (nword) to have guns".

 

Another easy way we can know the 2d is NOT about individuals owning guns is the expression "to bear arms" means to be a part of a military organization, and The Constitution does not contain the term FIREARMS, meaning a gun, only "arms" which only makes sense when combined with those other two words, "to bear".

 

Beyond that, the NRAGOP would have us believe we should also have no Federal Conservation laws because the Constitution didn't mention it.

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
193
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
208
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

208 Views
Message 8 of 225

@Richva wrote:


Firearms are so passe'  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well organized militia. If we go with what the framers intended, we are talking muzzle loading black powder weapons.  If we are ignoring that, then we should be allowed to have bio and chemical weapons. 


A far out premise. First the amendment specifically mentions firearms, not bio and chemical weapons.  Introducing them into a discussion is completely far out and is more an attempt to obfuscate the discussion. 

 

And further the second amendment didn't differentiate or mention specifics such as muskets, but firearms.  Claiming it only applied to muskets is a further attempt towards obfuscation.  If it was the case, then why hasn't the Supreme Court ruled that it only meant muskets?  There has been many opportunities to do so through the years.

Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
208
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
244
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

244 Views
Message 9 of 225

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@NOTHAPPENING wrote:

@myexper wrote:

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@myexper wrote:

And BTW, the AR15 was distributed to the South Vietnamese ARMY at the beginning of US involvement in Vietnam ..... hardly civilian use!


The US had been involved in Vietnam in some capacity since World War II, the AR 15 hasn't been around that long.  

The AR 15 "was around" and in use by US Military advisers in Vietnam and the South Vietnamese Army.

Reference an excerpt form GunDigest on the history of the AR15:

'Many of the U.S. advisers in Vietnam were equipped with the new AR-15 rifle. Rifles began to surface throughout Vietnam, totally outside the normal small arms procurement process. The first troops using the AR-15 under combat conditions were very enthusiastic, preferring it to all other weapons. The South Vietnamese were impressed with the rifle, as well."

 

Perhaps you can reference the source for your information? 

See reply above.

(Perhaps you could remember that I already provided a reference as to the introduction of the AR15 in previous topics you participated in.)

 

Is there a reason you never give sources for your information?

Is there a reason that you (conveniently?) can't remember that I have "given sources" ...... AND

Is there a reason why you demand that others answer your questions while you refuse to answer questions posed to you?

 

Besides the M16 is the military version since the AR15 is for civilian use.  From that source:  "Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance."

As the AR15's design intent  was to counter the AK47 combat assault rifle, the AR15 was designed as a combat assault rifle...... NEVER intended for civilian use!


 


That's exactly what it was designed for - civilian use.

Not true ...... The AR15 was "designed" to counter the AK47 combat assault rifle!

  • The “AR” in “AR-15” rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”
  • And I NEVER stated otherwise!
  • AR-15-style rifles are NOT “assault weapons” or “assault rifles.”
  • Not according to their design criteria!
  • An assault rifle is fully automatic, a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
  • A rifle need not be "fully automatic" to be considered a military combat assault weapon. The AR15's high velocity bullets, rapid trigger and massive magazine capability render it a weapon designed to kill as many persons as fast as possible, thus a weapon designed for military use only. In addition, the AR15 can be readily modified to be "fully automatic"
  • If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an “assault weapon,” then they’ve been duped by an agenda.
  • No "duping" nor "agenda" as you falsely claim ..... just historical facts that you obviously want to evade. As the AR15 was designed to counter the AK47 combat assault rifle ..... the AR15 is indeed a combat assault rifle!
  • The only real way to define what is an “assault weapon” is politically, as in how any given law chooses to define the term—this is why the states that have banned this category of semiautomatic firearms have done so with very different definitions.
  • Orrrr ..... "defined" by its design intent. You conveniently keep omitting that!
  • AR-15-style rifles can look like military rifles, (because IT IS a military rifle!) such as the M-16, but by law they function like other semiautomatic civilian sporting firearms, as they fire only one round with each pull of the trigger.
  • ........ But fire bullets at a far higher velocity and with rapid trigger operation and easily modified to full automatic! That's why it has been the obvious choice of mass killer shooters!
  •  

 

 


 


I gave you the link but you failed to read it so if you don't want to understand that an AR15 is NOT an assault rifle, I can't help the helpless. You can go ahead and paste your comments in blue every three words but it's obvious you know nothing about guns!


Actually, "it's obvious" that you want to evade the history of the AR15 as it clearly dispels what you would like to believe about this military combat assault rifle designed for mass killing!

DUMP TRUMP AND DITCH MITCH TO MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
244
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
3
Kudos
250
Views

Re: NZ BANS ASSAULT WEAPONS

250 Views
Message 10 of 225

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@mandm84 

 

Do you own any firearms?  I don't.  You sound like you would want to confiscate all firearms from responsible legal owners.   I don't.

 

Did you see the videos about hunting wild hogs with AR-15s that I posted.  They are used in hunting.  You sound as if you would confiscate them from these hunters and property owners protecting their property.  I don't.  We do have a proliferation of these wild hogs here in Texas.  You seem to think that property owners have no right to protect their property from them.

 

I don't think I'm the one keeping this thread alive, you keep addressing posts to me.

 

 


Firearms are so passe'  The Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well organized militia. If we go with what the framers intended, we are talking muzzle loading black powder weapons.  If we are ignoring that, then we should be allowed to have bio and chemical weapons. 

Report Inappropriate Content
3
Kudos
250
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Have you taken a memorable trip to a destination others should know about? Post a Trip Report


city skyline captured on tablet

Top Authors